Deficits in muscle strength are not seen following recovery from augmented primary repair of anterior cruciate ligament tears.

OBJECTIVES: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair for proximal tears, where the ligament is re-attached and augmented with suture tape, can negate the need for graft harvest, thereby maintaining native anatomy. Autograft harvest has been associated with persistent deficits in lower limb muscle strength after recovery from ACL reconstruction. The aim of this study is to compare lower limb muscle strength following ACL repair and reconstruction. METHODS: Nineteen ACL repair patients augmented with suture tape and nineteen ipsilateral semitendinosus-gracilis autograft ACL reconstruction patients (both mean 4 years postoperatively) were recruited, along with twenty healthy volunteers. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were obtained using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lysholm, and Tegner scores. Maximal isometric quadriceps and hamstring strength at 90° knee flexion were measured using a fixed Myometer after a warm-up and three maximal-effort contractions. RESULTS: Mean hamstring strength of the reconstructed legs was lower than that of healthy volunteers by 0.29 Nm/kg. The hamstring strength ratio of the operated side to the uninjured side was greater in the repair (95% â€‹± â€‹13) than in the reconstruction (81% â€‹± â€‹18) group. There were no statistically significant differences between sides for quadriceps peak torque or for hamstrings in the volunteer or repair group. PROMs scores for the reconstruction group were significantly lower than volunteers across all domains and lower than repair for KOOS activities of daily living and Lysholm scores. CONCLUSION: Hamstring weakness seen following ACL reconstruction is not evident following ACL repair with suture tape augmentation. Strength asymmetry could contribute to re-injury risk and influence functional performance, while altered loads affect knee biomechanics and may lead to osteoarthritis progression. The absence of these deficits in the repair group demonstrates a potential benefit of this technique when used in appropriate patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Anterior cruciate ligament repair with internal brace augmentation: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Primary repair of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures has re-emerged as a treatment option for proximal tears, with internal brace augmentation often utilised. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the current evidence presenting outcomes of ACL repair with internal bracing to assess the safety and efficacy of this technique. METHODS: All studies reporting outcomes of arthroscopic primary repair of proximal ACL tears, augmented with internal bracing from 2014-2021 were included. Primary outcome was failure rate and secondary outcomes were subjective patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and objective assessment of anteroposterior knee laxity. RESULTS: Nine studies were included, consisting of 347 patients, mean age 32.5 years, mean minimum follow up 2 years. There were 36 failures (10.4%, CI 7.4% - 14.1%). PROMs reporting was variable across studies. KOOS, Lysholm and IKDC scores were most frequently used with mean scores > 87%. The mean Tegner and Marx scores at follow-up were 6.1 and 7.8 respectively. The mean side to side difference measured for anteroposterior knee laxity was 1.2mm. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review with meta-analysis shows that ACL repair with internal bracing is a safe technique for treatment of proximal ruptures, with a failure rate of 10.4%. Subjective scores and clinical laxity testing also revealed satisfactory results. This suggests that ACL repair with internal bracing should be considered as an alternative to ACL reconstruction for acute proximal tears, with the potential benefits of retained native tissue and proprioception, as well as negating the need for graft harvest.

Robotic arm-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Exploratory secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study reports on a secondary exploratory analysis of the early clinical outcomes of a randomised clinical trial comparing robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee with manual UKA performed using traditional surgical jigs. This follows reporting of the primary outcomes of implant accuracy and gait analysis that showed significant advantages in the robotic arm-assisted group. METHODS: A total of 139 patients were recruited from a single centre. Patients were randomised to receive either a manual UKA implanted with the aid of traditional surgical jigs, or a UKA implanted with the aid of a tactile guided robotic arm-assisted system. Outcome measures included the American Knee Society Score (AKSS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Forgotten Joint Score, Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) activity scale, Short Form-12, Pain Catastrophising Scale, somatic disease (Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders Score), Pain visual analogue scale, analgesic use, patient satisfaction, complications relating to surgery, 90-day pain diaries and the requirement for revision surgery. RESULTS: From the first post-operative day through to week 8 post-operatively, the median pain scores for the robotic arm-assisted group were 55.4% lower than those observed in the manual surgery group (p = 0.040).At three months post-operatively, the robotic arm-assisted group had better AKSS (robotic median 164, interquartile range (IQR) 131 to 178, manual median 143, IQR 132 to 166), although no difference was noted with the OKS.At one year post-operatively, the observed differences with the AKSS had narrowed from a median of 21 points to a median of seven points (p = 0.106) (robotic median 171, IQR 153 to 179; manual median 164, IQR 144 to 182). No difference was observed with the OKS, and almost half of each group reached the ceiling limit of the score (OKS > 43). A greater proportion of patients receiving robotic arm-assisted surgery improved their UCLA activity score.Binary logistic regression modelling for dichotomised outcome scores predicted the key factors associated with achieving excellent outcome on the AKSS: a pre-operative activity level > 5 on the UCLA activity score and use of robotic-arm surgery. For the same regression modelling, factors associated with a poor outcome were manual surgery and pre-operative depression. CONCLUSION: Robotic arm-assisted surgery results in improved early pain scores and early function scores in some patient-reported outcomes measures, but no difference was observed at one year post-operatively. Although improved results favoured the robotic arm-assisted group in active patients (i.e. UCLA ⩾ 5), these do not withstand adjustment for multiple comparisons.Cite this article: M. J. G. Blyth, I. Anthony, P. Rowe, M. S. Banger, A. MacLean, B. Jones. Robotic arm-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Exploratory secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:631-639. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.611.BJR-2017-0060.R1.